TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under. 3. These petitions are filed by the Revenue, challenging a common order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission ('the Commission' for short) under section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, accepting offer of settlement made by the respondents and granting immunity from prosecution and penalty. 4. The respondent no.2 in each of the petitions are assessees engaged in the business of construction and development of immovable properties. They also belong to the same group of assessees. Assessments for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in case of these assessees were pending. Desirous of settling such disputes, the assessees moved different settlement applications, each by the respective assessee, seeking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue had not brought any contrary material on the record in this respect. The Commission also suggested that 15% rate of profit out of the turnover was reasonable. The Commission while passing the impugned order further recorded that during the course of the proceedings, the representatives of the assessees had made a voluntary disclosure of an additional sum of Rs. 2 crores i.e. Rs. 50 lakhs in case of each assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 "In a spirit of settlement and to put a quietus to the issue." Taking note of the materials on record in these further disclosures made by the assessees, the Settlement Commission passed the impugned order and, as noted, accepted the offers of settlement and granted immunity to the assessees fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were made by the assessees in the spirit of settlement. These disclosures must be seen in light of overall disclosures made by the assessees for all the four assessment years. The further disclosures were not substantial as compared to the original disclosures made by the assessees. He drew our attention to a Division Bench judgment dated 12.07.2016 in Special Civil Application No.2881 of 2015 and connected petitions, in which, looking to facts of the case, the order of the Settlement Commission acting on further disclosures made by the assessee was upheld. Counsel submitted that Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Incometax- CentralI v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, reported in [2016] 65 taxmann.com 40 (Bom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particulars of undisclosed income and "the manner" in which such income was derived and, therefore, unless the Settlement Commission records its satisfaction on this aspect, it will not have the jurisdiction to pass any order on the matter covered by the application. ... ... 33. As aforestated, in the scheme of Chapter XIXA, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed under section 245C(1) of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that determination of income by the Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under the said Section in the prescribed form. Para ... ... 36. We are convinced that, in the instant case, the disclosure of Rs. 11.41 cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclosures were substantial, relying on the judgment of Ajmera Housing (supra), the Court set aside the order of Settlement Commission, making following observations: "17. In the present case, however, the disclosures revised by the assessee during the course of the settlement proceedings were substantial and, in fact, far greater than the initial disclosure made. The Settlement Commission completely ignored the opposition of the Revenue in this respect on the ground that it is difficult to ascertain with degree of accuracy the undisclosed income on the basis of impounded documents, a ground which in our opinion is not valid." 13. With this background, we may revert to facts on hand. The four different assessees had made following disclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one were to project the further disclosures of Rs. 50 lakhs each for the entire period for which the settlement is sought and the total initial disclosures for the years under consideration, the further disclosures do not represent a substantial rise. In case of assessees, the initial disclosures were in tune of more than a crore each and in some cases much more; for example, in Shree Aadhyashakti Enterprises for the assessment year 2013-14, the initial disclosure itself was of income of Rs. 87.65 lakhs and for the assessment year 2014-15, it was Rs. 1,00,32,930/. In case of Shree Shakti Associates, disclosures for the assessment year 2011-12 was Rs. 20.25 lakhs, for the assessment year 2012-13 Rs. 34.53 lakhs, for the assessment year 2013-....